I don't get why this article says he's $2B richer. It was always part of his net worth - being liquid and publicly traded doesn't really change that. Sounds like a "Remain Calm All is Well!" plant.
This isn’t necessarily good or bad. It just gives him the capability to pursue additional businesses. The upside is he can rehabilitate these businesses and increase his worth. The downside is obvious, he purchases lemons and his value decreases. It is certainly possible the purchase of the Rockets necessitated this decision to the extent that otherwise he lacks the credit and funds to pursue these businesses that he believes he can make more profitable. If this goes completely south he could decide to sell the Rockets, but he wouldn’t have to. I personally don’t think this will impact how he runs the Rockets. He loves the Rockets, he wanted to buy them 27 years ago. However he also had clearly said they have to at least break even after everything is accounted for. It isn’t a toy to him, it is a business.
You mean founders of internet companies don't get richer on their IPO????? He just got valued at 10x revenue, in the form of stock (59% of FST). Just like any IPO, the founders value gets realized when going public.
The somewhat interesting thing is this makes it harder to handwave how wealthy he is - there's now a public marker on it. The public equity scrutiny will be interesting, especially with a guy claiming he'll be CEO for another 20 years. It's a lot harder to sweep things under the rug. The rationale for this is frankly better than a lot of SPAC businesses, but I don't have a ton of faith in his ability (or anyone's for that matter) to buy undervalued businesses in a market with historic valuation levels. Moving from restaurants to gaming is probably a sound move, though.
This moves Tilmans net worth into the top 6 or 7 richest owners in the league, before he was sitting around 9/10 Still won’t change him being a cheap ass with the Rockets
Actually his value doesn't get realized until he sells shares. The Sources and Uses presented in the investor presentation don't show that he's selling/liquidating any shares at this point in time. At this point, his value is now more visible, and a little more liquid (after any lock-ups expire), but there doesn't appear to be any more actual cash in his pocket due to this deal. It's mainly a way to take advantage of the strong valuation multiples currently in the stock market... and give him a currency to go out and fund acquisitions. This isn't an IPO either - it's going public by merging his business into an existing public company shell -- a SPAC called Fast Acquisition Corp.
"Fertitta was poised to register for an initial public offering .... SPACs are blank-check companies that raise money from public investors to acquire a private company and take it public. Fast raised $200 million in August. SPACs are an increasingly attractive avenue to take a company public, because it removes barriers entrepreneurs face with traditional initial public offerings" ----------------- SPACs are normally for young entrepreneur companies. Does that describe the restaurant and casino business? WSJ Start-ups going Public vs. SPAC - face fewer limits "Similarly, companies generally don’t include projections in IPO documents because of regulations that put them at high risk for litigation if they miss those plans. Startups that go public through SPACs face fewer constraints because the deals are considered mergers."
Right, same with Les selling his properties or any other assets. But, I'm talking about how Forbes creates their list of Billionaires. Do any of those billionaires actually have all their assets "realized" by converting to cash. No. Yep. That's clear. I mean, I read the article and listened to Tilman specifically address that... and uploaded a video titled 'Fertitta Merger." My analogy to IPOs was about other billionaire founders.
